In a previous note (1), we argued that sound wave equations (with certain boundary conditions) derived from the Boltzmann transport equation conservation relations match the form of a quantum mechanical solution of a particle in a box with an infinite potential at the walls. Furthermore, we argued that in both the sound and quantum pictures there exists a dispersion velocity u= d/d/x ln(density) (classical) and u= -i d/dx ln(W) where W is the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Both represent forward backward motion at different x points. Thus, there seems to be a link between classical sound and quantum mechanics at least in terms of some density type solutions and a backwards forwards motion. It is also known, however, that for the ground state of a ground oscillator, the quantum solution is of the same form as the static Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) solution C exp(- mvv/2mT - .5kxx/T). In this case, quantum mechanics still has a dispersion velocity with forward backward motion, but statistical mechanics has a zero u(x,t). The Boltzmann transport conservation relations yield the MB solution on the basis of a balance of pressure and force. This leads to the question: Why do the two approaches yield the same solution in this one case, even though the underlying physics seems to be quite different? We argue that even though u(x,t)=0 for the MB static solution, there is still dispersive flow which is forward at the left endpoint and backwards at the right. Thus, in both the case of sound and the MB solution with a potential there may be dispersion which has links to quantum mechanics.
In a previous note (1), we argued that sound wave equations (with certain boundary conditions) derived from the Boltzmann transport equation conservation relations match the form of a quantum mechanical solution of a particle in a box with an infinite potential at the walls. Furthermore, we argued that in both the sound and quantum pictures there exists a dispersion velocity u= d/d/x ln(density) (classical) and u= -i d/dx ln(W) where W is the wavefunction in quantum mechanics. Both represent forward backward motion at different x points. Thus, there seems to be a link between classical sound and quantum mechanics at least in terms of some density type solutions and a backwards forwards motion. It is also known, however, that for the ground state of a ground oscillator, the quantum solution is of the same form as the static Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) solution C exp(- mvv/2mT - .5kxx/T). In this case, quantum mechanics still has a dispersion velocity with forward backward motion, but statistical mechanics has a zero u(x,t). The Boltzmann transport conservation relations yield the MB solution on the basis of a balance of pressure and force. This leads to the question: Why do the two approaches yield the same solution in this one case, even though the underlying physics seems to be quite different? We argue that even though u(x,t)=0 for the MB static solution, there is still dispersive flow which is forward at the left endpoint and backwards at the right. Thus, in both the case of sound and the MB solution with a potential there may be dispersion which has links to quantum mechanics.
In a previous note (1), it was shown that for a ground state oscillator wavefunction, one could analyse the problem in momentum space as a free gas of momentum particles and obtain exp(-p*p/2mT) as fp*fp, fp being the momentum wavefunction. A free energy equal to zero was obtained, with kinetic energy being the energy term in E-TS. This suggests quantum particles scatter (with conservation of momentum) like classical point particles in momentum space, but differ from classical point particles in position space. In particular, one takes a Fourier transform of fp as it seems that each momentum wave carries an exp(ipx) function which is a sort of “baggage” term, possibly due to zitterbewegung. This seems to explain why a free gas in momentum space for the ground state oscillator yields a Gaussian density with W(x)=exp(-ax*x) (W(x)=wavefunction). An oscillator potential is then needed to keep this density with its momentum space pressure in balance. Thus, quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics become very similar for this scenario. This begs the question: What about other potentials or oscillator states higher than the ground state? In such a case, it still seems that one may consider “particles colliding in momentum space” with each carrying an exp(ipx) “baggage” term, but one does not have a “classical statistical mechanical” equilibrium scenario any longer. Rather, it seems that one has a net force created by -dV/dx (V(x)=potential) and a difference in pressure d/dx [Average(p*p)d(x)] where d(x) is density. There also seems to be an average velocity (1/W)dW/dx. In momentum space such a velocity would not exist for f(p)=f(-p), but because of the baggage of exp(ipx) it is present i.e. p exp(ipx) - p exp(-ipx). Newton’s law, with force acting on this velocity appears in the equation d/dx [Average(p*p)d(x)]=F(x) d(x). This same equation is equivalent to the gradient of the time-independent Schrodinger equation. For quantum mechanics, one has one particle rather than many as in classical statistical mechanics. Thus, it seems that this “Newton’s law” balance is based on a long term time average. It seems, however, that there should be a period T during which the average can establish itself. After this, one would have periodic time motion where the system keeps scattering back into itself in this characteristic time. This period can be deduced, it seems, from the time-independent Schrodinger equation and is found to be E, the energy.
It is known in the literature that there exists a strong link between quantum mechanics (e.g. a particle in a box with an infinite potential at the walls) and standing sound waves as described in (1) (or even waves on a string). This relationship goes beyond the sinusoidal solutions and includes interference and other features discussed in (1). In (2), we suggest that periodicity in both classical and quantum solutions may be based on the statistical idea of maximum entropy. For example, a particle in a classical gas with no potential has equal probability to be at any point x. If one wishes to retain this idea of equal probability at each x, yet have momentum linked to x, then exp(ipx) is a solution which allows for this. It has a modulus of one and is also periodic in space which is the “next best thing” to being constant. In classical statistical mechanics (3), the Boltzmann transport equation allows one to find a density which describes sound in a medium. In this note, we examine the various assumptions used to derive this wave-equation and investigate whether one may anticipate this periodicity at a stage in the derivation prior to the sound wave equation being derived. We argue that a periodic solution may be part of a more general statistical idea of maximum entropy.
Quantum mechanics and classical statistical mechanics/thermodynamics are both statistical theories, but have key differences. We argue that one such key difference is nonlocality in the quantum world i.e a wavelength proportional to 1/p and a probability of exp(ipx) associated with p versus locality in the classical case. Quantum nonlocality tends to lead to spatial densities with humps even for a particle with a fixed energy in an infinite potential box. Recently it has been suggested in (1) that one may think of a quantum particle in a box with infinite walls in terms of thermodynamical properties e.g. pressure which is taken to be constant throughout the box. From this assumption, one finds that quantum entropy is ln[ Average(nxnx + nyny+nznz)]. For a single quantum state, this seems to imply that entropy is ln[nxnx+nyny+nznz] ((1a)). In a previous note (2), we suggested that quantum entropy for a wavefunction (say an eigenstate) is Integral dx W*(x)W(x) ln[W*W] + Integral dp a*(p)a(p) ln[a*(p)a(p)] ((1b)). We found this is independent of L for a particle in a box with infinite walls so that displacing the wall adiabatically should mean that dS/dL = 0 which it does as L cancels from ((1)). We argue in this note that quantum pressure should be linked to the density humps for a sin(pave x)sin(pave x) wavefunction even though pave is constant at all x points. Thus it seems that one would not consider a constant pressure for sin(pave x)=wavefunction. Furthermore ((1b)) does not yield the same entropy as ((1a)). It is noted in (1) that ((1a)) is an exact expression for entropy and that the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution entropy approximates it. In this note, we argue that a time reversal balanced scattering reaction leads to the Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions and these both lead to the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution under certain conditions. (The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution may also be obtained from time reversal balanced scattering with looser restrictions.)
The classical Lagrangian L leads to Newton’s second law which is equivalent to an energy-momentum conservation equation. The classical action: A = Integral dt1 L(t1) for a constant velocity v=X/T may be varied with respect X and T i.e dA/dT = -E and dA/dX= p. Thus, one may create a differential equation in (dA/dT)(dA/dt) and dA/dx dA/dx for the EE=pp+momo equation. Alternatively, one may create other differential equations. Quantum mechanical differential equations, however, are quite different with exp(i Action) being a solution. Even this may be written as the solution of a non-Schrodinger equation i.e. id/dt exp(iAction) = -1/2m (d/dx exp(iAction)) (d/dx exp(iAction)) for a free particle. For a constant velocity, exp(iAction) is equivalent to exp(ipx-iEt). We argue that this solution is statistical because it separates x and t (as independent variables) and holds for all x and t. Thus, quantum mechanics seems to be a statistical approach using free solutions exp(ipx-iEt) to create an ensemble as in classical statistical mechanics. A difference, however, is that exp(ipx-iEt) “interferes” even if one only takes the real part cos(px-Et). We consider the case of a particle in a box with infinite potential walls to argue that the periodicity is warranted i.e. positive and negative values (interference). Even though the modulus is 1, exp(ipx-iEt) may be operated on by various generators e.g. d/dx the generator of translations. This is analogous to operations on vectors in linear algebra. As noted above, quantum equations are not only energy-momentum conservation equations. They yield a wavefunction W(x) which is an unusual momentum distribution W(x)=Sum over p a(p) exp(ipx). exp(-iEt) holds overall because average E is the same at each x. Thus, one needs a W(x) which leads to a momentum-energy conservation equation, but also satisfies certain boundary conditions which become linked to spatial density= W*W. This leads to discrete energy levels and also cases of humps and troughs in W(x). We attempt to investigate some of these ideas in this note.
Classical statistical equilibrium appears to be based on a no-flow situation with a balance of pressure (including -dV/dx in the case of a potential present). It may be noted, however, that like quantum mechanics, a single particle has different probabilities of being at one x versus another. Furthermore, the Maxwell-Boltzmann, Fermi-Dirac and Bose-Einstein distributions may be obtained using reaction balance which is linked to conservation of energy i.e. g(f(ei))g(f(ej)) = g(f(el))g(f(ek)) where ei+ej=el+ei=e. Taking ln of the former expression and linking to the latter yields f(ei), the probability distribution. g=1 for the MB case, f(e)/(1-f(ei)) for the FD and f(e)/(1+f(ei)) for the BE. In classical mechanics, one has the conservation equation: p(x)*p(x)/2m + V(x) = E. In quantum bound systems one has: KE(ave)(x) + V(x) = E which appears to be very similar, although it is based on ensemble averages and there is a momentum distribution P(p/x) at each x. A question which arises is: What is the “conservation of energy” equation for a particular p of the P(p/x) distribution? In this note, we argue the “potential” term associated with a component p*p/2m is related to the part of the potential which contributes to the “creation” of p. In particular, we consider V(x)= Sum over k V(k) exp(ikx) where each k term renders a kick of momentum k. One may create a momentum p using k and p-k for each value of k. We further argue that: p*p/2m P(p/x) + contributing portion of V(x) = E P(p/x) ((1)) for all p. Thus, in quantum equilibrium, which involves a flow, there is a “constant E” type of equation i.e. ((1)), different in form but similar in idea, to that of classical statistical mechanical equilibrium. In previous notes, we referred to this as cycling, but in this note we wish to consider it in terms of dynamics. We further note that in both classical statistical mechanics and quantum mechanics, the energy-probability p equation makes use of the overall average energy which is bT for the classical case and E for the quantum. (b is constant)
Quantum mechanics is often compared with classical mechanics because both may deal with a single particle subject to a potential. Classical mechanics is said to be deterministic describing x(t) and its derivatives i.e showing how a particle moves and accelerates while bound state quantum mechanics produces a real wavefunction W(x) such that W(x)W(x) yields a spatial density profile. The comparison is carried further with the correspondence principle which states that at high energy levels quantum mechanics should mimic classical mechanics. Classical mechanics does not simply describe x(t) and its derivatives i.e. deterministic motion. It also includes two body scattering, force and torque balances for a stationary object etc. In the case of the classical statistical mechanics of an equilibrium ideal gas, the Maxwell-Boltzmann (MB) distribution in the absence of a potential is C1 exp(- pp/(2mT) ). If a potential V(x) is added, one may find P(x) two different ways using Newtonian ideas. The first is to consider the gas as a collective entity like a tiny macroscopic classical object at x. Then one may argue that equilibrium means the system is stationary and apply Newtonian statics i.e. a balance of pressures and -dV/dx to obtain exp(-V(x)/T) as is often done in textbooks. Alternatively, one may consider a single particle and apply Newtonian mechanics differently, namely use a conservation of energy equation: p1p1/2m + V(x1) = p2p2/2m + V(x2). Again one obtains exp(-V(x)/T). The spatial part of probability may be based on Newtonian mechanics indicating that it is not stochastic. The stochastic function is C1 exp(-pp/2mT). Interestingly, however, the two Newtonian approaches are different with respect to a single particle. A collective nonmoving set of particles acts as a stationary object, yet within it each particle seems to be “bouncing” off of an imaginary wall creating pressure. Thus one has an impulse free particle picture yet obtains the correct result exp(-V(x)/T). Alternatively one may think of a single particle accelerating which it does if it is not colliding with other particles. This is a very different picture of the single particle than of one bouncing back and forth hitting an imaginary wall. In fact, there is usually a wall holding the gas together and pressure and bouncing particles are the real picture there, but within the gas one would normally think of a single particle accelerating. Nevertheless there are two scenarios which yield the same result. The idea of pressure balance is more in keeping with an overall statistical picture of the gas. In other words, one may actually ignore the idea of following a single particle as it accelerates. (That is not to say that single particle acceleration does not exist - it does.) Quantum mechanics we argue is a statistical theory. In the case of a single bound particle one has a momentum distribution W(x)=wavefunction = Sum over p a(p)exp(ipx). One may apply conservation of average energy at each x to obtain the time-independent Schrodinger equation. In such a picture, like with the statistical mechanical gas, we argue that one may imagine impulse hits with the potential instead of considering acceleration. The quantity vrms(x) from KEclassical= .5m vrms(x)vrms(x) = -1/2m d/dx dW/dx / W does display acceleration, but this is a mathematical average. As energy levels become higher the correspondence principle is said to apply, but a classical particle exhibits acceleration. The quantum bound state does not, but like in the case of the statistical mechanical gas it may be that two scenarios lead to the same result. In other words, the quantum bound W(x) still has crests and troughs, but with low resolution one may only see an envelope roughly touching W(x)W(x) which matches a classical C2/v(x) where v(x) is classical velocity. Given that quantum mechanics is a statistical theory it may not be necessary to have it explicitly display acceleration.